Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't take the theorists' word for it. I explore what the theorists are saying and compare what they say with other theorists and try to connect
dots. No, I don't do experiments. Sorry, but that makes me want to laugh! Yeah I'm going to do experiments in my kitchen!

You can do plenty of experiments in your kitchen! The laws of nature are the same there as anywhere else. Why does it make you want to laugh?

I'm not going to try to put into my own words that link I've already referred you to.

Having just messed with the kitchen faucet for awhile I had to chime in on this. ahah -- no light. So his thread version and it still hasn't
worked.... to create electricity from water flow using antigravity levition principles.

First, its not so much the location as it is the methods used. The location is simply a space in which you can carry out experiments as the laws of
nature, for all intents and purposes, do not change. That being said, here are some links to some kitchen specific experiments. To most, many of
these will seem "basic," but they lay a good foundation for our own understanding and a basis for which to explore. Again, most will discard some
of the "basic" experiments since they have "already been done." However, if they have not been done by oneself, then there is plenty of
exploration to take place. I even encourage others to come up with experiments of their own design to explore principles they think might be
applicable and then utilized. Get creative!

An issue with some is that many of these are linked with "kids play." Regardless of that, they can demonstrate the laws of nature in a very clear
way. The idea behind science is to find patterns that we can utilize reliably. Therefore, any properly controlled experiment can work in this
regard. The limit is, literally, your imagination.

Did you know that utilization of this technology is used in CRT electron guns? (dont
mess with these things if you are not confident in your knowledge and ability. Seriously.)

Well, thats a brief start, at least. The limitations are the laws of nature and your imagination. You can come up with any tests you want to. You
can create your own measuring devices. You can create your own utilizations of observed patterns. The biggest difference between a home made
experiment and a large funded one tend to be in data collection. It can also be in scale, and access to sample pools. But, that doesnt change the
observer. How do you want to test the universe around you? Its all up to you.

I can see me actually using this .pdf as a guideline for setting up experiments at home with the assistance of members of my family. My brother is an
electrical engineer who is recently retired, and my older son is interested in tinkering with alternate methods of generating electricity. I also
have a grandson for whom I will be looking for projects to provide an outlet for his curiosity should he demonstrate an interest. (He's only 18 months
old right now, though!

)

One thing I see right away in this .pdf is the reference to the "transverse nature of magnetic force." What about Tesla's longitudinal standing
waves? Were you following this thread back on pages 8 and
10?

If you are interested in emf waves and the effects on the mind and the body, read some of Robert O Becker books. He is a Doctor, and a scientist and
his research shows even low emf waves can effect the body and brain negatively. Some of his research showed more of an impact on a the human body with
lower frequencies. It changes the cells in or bodies and there is research out there but it gets suppressed. We are bombarded by it everyday with cell
phones, laptops, and all the other frequecies running through the air and it gets worse and worse every year with al lthe wireless technologies.

Originally posted by HODOSKE
We are bombarded by it everyday with cell phones, laptops, and all the other frequecies running through the air and it gets worse and worse every year
with al lthe wireless technologies.

It worries me that we are so dependent upon these things that we fail to take action or do anything about the situation because we can't imagine that
a solution is doable - we feel overwhelmed by the pervasiveness and throw up our hands thinking there's nothing we can do; it's hopeless. And there
are so many other things to worry about as well, such as the "totalitarian tiptoe" as David Icke calls it, and global financial meltdown.

Originally posted by HODOSKE
We are bombarded by it everyday with cell phones, laptops, and all the other frequecies running through the air and it gets worse and worse every year
with all the wireless technologies.

This applies, with few or no exceptions, to all advances in human culture and technology. Smoked meat tastes great but may contain carcinogen. Before
the invention of the automobile, there were no car accidents and/or deaths associated with same. Nuclear energy is actually cleaner, under normal
conditions, than coal powered plants but of course we have had Chernobyl and Fukushima.

For every death due to brain cancer caused by a cellphone (no clear evidence yet but there may be a link) there is a life saved by a 911 call from a
cell phone. I would like to also note that the actual energy density we are subjected to is not growing too rapidly at all. The spectrum is regulated
and actually sold in frequency bands, at auctions, so cell companies can't inflict microwave cooking upon your house even if they wanted to (expensive
for them as well). As to the number of WiFi devices in your house, you can stick with a wired LAN if you want to. Mercifully, Maxwell's equations
guarantee that the power falls off rapidly with distance, so I won't be worried about a few WiFi cards located 10 yards away from me. At the same
time, I avoid carrying my phone on my belt (too close to kidneys and other organs that matter). It's all common sense.

Thanks Mary. You see, a strong reaction I have from many of your posts stems from same. Let's imagine you are a car mechanic who spent 30 years of
their lives fixing and tuning cars. You know how cars work because, on daily basis, you keep tweaking the ignition, changing the starter motors and
replacing transmission fluid. Then someone comes around and says that cars actually run on cosmic energy which shines on Earth in a perfect proportion
of 5:3 (or any other such thing). You would love to know how exactly this is happening, and what evidence they have, but they keep invoking tuning
forks and divine guidance. You see, I'm not even veering too much from verbiage used in these threads. I looked at my transmission fluid and there is
plenty of chemistry going on but no evidence of divine intervention.

No experiment that you can do in your kitchen, garage or even at the LHC will allow you to reach definitive conclusions on the physics of black holes.
However, just like to judge original Chinese poetry you need to know some Chinese, you need basic knowledge of how things work in that area of
research, I mean physics. I've studied diffraction in my teens, with an old camera, it was way cool. And yes, I spent too much time looking at muons,
and when and if someone tells me what I measured was a figment of imagination, you know what my reaction might be.

Well Mary, at least I don't create numerous posts which contain remarks like "Einstein and his idiots", or express disdain for science because
supposedly it's all s sham, outside of vibrational orgone-based donuts like Rodin's.

Please reconsider his words Mary. He is actually quite honest in that post, with little to no perceivable condescension. He is speaking candidly and
respectfully.

He also managed to answer your questions to me, for me. I obviously do not always agree with buddhasystem, but he has a point here. And made it
respectfully.

To add:

I am not saying Relativity is complete. Einstein himself would agree, and did so through his actions. Just because he is considered "standard"
science does not mean it is not representative of truth. It is just missing a few pieces.

ALL human contextual understanding of the universe will be limited. However, the most objective language we can use is mathematics based on
experimentation. It is far from fiction. Those very "scientists" that you quoted about the electric universe undoubtedly use mathematics
themselves.

The tricky part comes into play when we consider that according to our understanding, the mathematics system we have derived from the patterns of the
universe itself is infinitely divisible. This can lead us to leaps that are largely unsubstantiated in anything other than the mathematics
itself. This is where I agree with your quote. When experimentation can not be done, but the math seems to align with reality, we must consider that
our understanding is incomplete. But it is no more fiction than the computer that you are using right now to type your responses.

The electric universe theories, while intriguing, still tend to use the exact same mathematics for the physical behavior they attempt to describe.
They just use different subjective language. Its an important distinction!

Simply put, the labels are irrelevant. It is the math and experimentation that lead to growth and learning in science. And that, ostensibly, has no
end as far as we humans are concerned.

It could be labelled magnetism, it could be labelled gravity, it could be labelled "dumplings." What is pertinent is the patterns we explore can
consistently predict further phenomena, and we do this exclusively through math. We can effectively input a variable to take the place of hitherto
unexplained behavior, and it makes the equation no less valid. Just incomplete. This is the very thing that the quest of experimentation attempts to
answer. The unexplained variable of an incomplete equation.

Perhaps its would be wise to ignore the differences in labels altogether until we have a better understanding of the equations themselves.

Originally posted by sinohptik
I am not saying Relativity is complete. Einstein himself would agree, and did so through his actions. Just because he is considered "standard"
science does not mean it is not representative of truth. It is just missing a few pieces.

My sense now is that it's not that GR is incomplete, it's that gravity does not work in the universe the way Einstein said it does. And the math we
have is there to make it look as if it did.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.